Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is it dismissive? What is a slave? How many types of slavery are there?
What about Mikhail Bakunin's definition...
"Slavery may change its form or its name -- its essence remains the same. Its essence may be expressed in these words: to be a slave is to be forced to work for someone else, just as to be a master is to live on someone else's work. In antiquity, just as in Asia and in Africa today, as well as even in a part of America, slaves were, in all honesty, called slaves. In the Middle Ages, they took the name of serfs: nowadays they are called wage earners. The position of this latter group has a great deal more dignity attached to it, and it is less hard than that of slaves, but they are nonetheless forced, by hunger as well as by political and social institutions, to maintain other people in complete or relative idleness, through their own exceedingly hard labour. Consequently they are slaves. And in general, no state, ancient or modern, has ever managed or will ever manage to get along without the forced labour of the masses, either wage earners or slaves, as a principal and absolutely necessary foundation for the leisure, the liberty, and the civilisation of the political class."
Because it's only as true you believe it to be - the trouble with the Spooners of this world, is they talk about that of which they have no experience.
Bakunin sounds just as dopey- maybe somewhat more relevant in his day, but garbage in the modern world of today.
The only slave is when someone is owned by another, backed by the authority of whoever rules.
Because it's only as true you believe it to be - the trouble with the Spooners of this world, is they talk about that of which they have no experience.
No they don't, but you do.
In any case, slavery has existed for millennia. African chattel slavery is but one type. In fact, the term slave actually comes from Slav(IE Eastern Europeans), because large numbers of Slavs were enslaved by Muslim traders.
The Romans also had slavery, the Vikings had slaves, so did the Chinese. In the distant past people would even voluntarily sell themselves into slavery. And as you know, the first legal slave in the United States was owned by a black master.
In any case, slavery has existed for millennia. African chattel slavery is but one type. In fact, the term slave actually comes from Slav(IE Eastern Europeans), because large numbers of Slavs were enslaved by Muslim traders.
The Romans also had slavery, the Vikings had slaves, so did the Chinese. In the distant past people would even voluntarily sell themselves into slavery. And as you know, the first legal slave in the United States was owned by a black master.
Then were serfs slaves? What about indentured servants?
This doesn't explain Spooners quote, or it's supposed relevance to today.
I'm pretty sure the existence of most serfs, would match the definition of slavery - and that sure doesn't include the voluntary career change every ten years, that Spooner is so dismissive off.
In any case, slavery has existed for millennia. African chattel slavery is but one type. In fact, the term slave actually comes from Slav(IE Eastern Europeans), because large numbers of Slavs were enslaved by Muslim traders.
The Romans also had slavery, the Vikings had slaves, so did the Chinese. In the distant past people would even voluntarily sell themselves into slavery. And as you know, the first legal slave in the United States was owned by a black master.
This doesn't explain Spooners quote, or it's supposed relevance to today
Slavery was created by governments because they needed labor. A slave is someone who is forced to labor by threat of the whip. A serf is someone who is forced to labor by threat of starvation. A wage-laborer is forced to labor by threat of homelessness, starvation, and social-ostracization.
Governments can only exist by forcing people to support them. The only difference between one society and another, is the means by which people are forced.
The supposition is that slavery never really ended, since no government could exist without the forced labor of the masses. Rather that chattel slavery and serfdom were abolished because a more profitable slavery was developed. Capitalism.
Furthermore, government is not voluntary. And the fact that we can choose our rulers doesn't make us free. None of us really own anything, not land, nothing. We rent it from the government, who will confiscate it if we don't pay them whatever they demand.
Thus through political and social institutions we are reduced at minimum to a kind of servitude, if not serfdom. But whether servitude, serfdom, and slavery are different in their specifics, their purpose is exactly the same. And the reason the government enforced slavery was because the state needed the proceeds from the labor.
In any case, no one is being dismissive of slavery. They just define it more broadly than you do. For instance, many people say that North Korea is a slave state. Ronald Reagan said that Soviet Communism was slavery. And Frederick Douglass, an actual slave, said that socialism is slavery of all to all.
If it truly requires funding, why can’t it be funded, you know, voluntarily? Why do you want to force people to fund your pet project at gunpoint?
Voluntary funding = voluntary taxation. On a small scale it can work (village). Anything larger, forget it. As the OP stated, wealth is relative. The less I "fund" and the more you "fund" then the better off I become relative to you.
I live in a condominium complex (360 units in 30 buildings) where the owners had been so unwilling to pay adequate assessments to maintain the place, the buildings were literally falling down around them! It had gotten so bad that one of the owners told me another owner offered to just give him two units for free... and he refused! It took a "revolution" to overthrow the board and impose a period of harsh austerity (doubled the assessments for 2 years), to catch up on some of the maintenance, as the roofs were about to start caving in from water damage. We literally had a riot at the board meeting when the assessments were levied. The police had to be called to restore order. Nearly three years later, many of the deadbeat owners have moved on and the value of the units has more than doubled. Those owners that remained who had fought so hard to oppose the assessments are now singing praises to the board for the great work.
If a group of condominium owners can't even come together to "voluntarily" pay for the necessary upkeep for something they have a vested financial interest it, do you really believe a government could be voluntarily funded?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
